2 
filaments and a glabrous rachis, which latter character is well seen in the 
type. A confusion of specimens in the Herbarium of Leyden is not pro- 
bable, as the type sent agrees as far as it goes entirely with the descrip- 
tion in Korthals’ paper. The only probable suggestion seems to be that 
Korthals was mistaken in attributing to his plant characters which 
would bring it clearly to Connaracew. He may have mistaken a 
second abortive ovule for an aril. I, therefore, am of opinion that the 
pubescent inflorescence, and the want of scales at the base of. the 
longer filaments. Such scales are present in a closely similar plant 
collected by Beccari in Sumatra (No. 900); also No. 2951 of Beccari 
from Sarawak, a similar plant, has the scales, but in a very rudimen- 
stitute a character of generic valu ut e concede t 
scandens belongs really to the genus proposed by Korthuls, and if we 
assu that his assertion that Dapania has solitary ovules and 
. 1. Flower. 2. Same, fully expanded. 3. Vertical section of same. 
4. Stamens and pistil. 5. One carpel detached and laid open dorsally. 6. Trans- 
verse section of ovary, upper part. 7. Ditto, lower part. Enlarged. 
